Mazloum Abdi: Syria, Iran, and Turkey 'incited' Arab tribes to attack the SDF

Why did you decide to remove "Abu Khawla" from the Deir ez-Zor Military Council?

Our forces have issued a statement explaining why Ahmed Al-Khubail (Abu Khawla) was removed from his duties. We made that decision after fielding complaints from the people and notables of the region and based on an arrest warrant issued by the Public Prosecution in northern and eastern Syria.

He has been accused of committing many crimes, including collaborating with external parties.

What was the Syrian government's role in the tribal uprising?

Damascus used the media to instigate the tribes east of the Euphrates. Some of the tribes fighting against us have links with the regime.

The regime sent gangs of armed men from the other banks of the Euphrates to storm our areas, but we thwarted their attempts to cross the river.

Have there been contacts between you and Damascus after the recent tension? 

No, there has been no official contact between us and Damascus.

Do you think there is coordination between Damascus, Ankara, and Tehran in supporting the tribes?

We believe there is clear coordination between Damascus and Tehran to support some tribes' leaders. Turkey also lent its support to the uprising by sending affiliated armed groups. 

These gangs were involved in grave attacks on our areas, particularly in Manbij, Tel Tamr, and Ayn Issa.

You can say the three capitals share the same desire to use these tribes to carry out their agendas — even though their agendas differ. Their shared goal is to undermine the formula the people living in the autonomous region have agreed upon.

They want to undermine our relationships with the tribes but have failed to do so.

Some say that Arabs are oppressed in northeastern Syria. What is your response?

We firmly reject such accusations. The Autonomous Administration represents all the people in the region. The strength of our forces comes from the weighty participation of the Arabs in them.

Read more: Why Arabs are increasingly joining the SDF in Syria's northeast

It is areas, not ethnic groups, that have been subjected to injustice, due to Islamic State (IS) terrorism, the lack of services and continuous attempts by several parties to undermine their stability.

We try diligently to solve the populations' problems in the areas that suffered hardships. And I repeat here: We have pledged to address those problems as quickly as possible.

How did Russia respond to the recent escalation? Was the Russian bombing of tribes in the Manbij countryside an expression of support for the SDF?

The truth is that Russia did not bomb the tribes, as you suggest. Instead, it took military action against the armed groups that posed as tribes. Russia didn't want Turkey to exploit the recent tensions to expand their influence.

So, it's not accurate to say that Russia supports us.

We have a longstanding understanding with Russia to maintain stability in the region when the international coalition withdrew from the west of the Euphrates in 2019. Russia doesn't want to see any change in its areas of influence in this area.

Regarding the United States, it only conducted reconnaissance flights but did not provide military support. How do you interpret this?

We did not need American support, apart from their provision of air support in the form of reconnaissance. We had faith in the competence of our own forces and their capacity to address the persisting security challenges. We were convinced that the majority of the local population would endorse and rally behind our "Security Reinforcement" initiative, and this indeed turned out to be the case.

American representatives suggested mediating between you and the tribes. What did that mean?

In this context, we align with the United States on two primary issues: our joint objectives of ensuring the complete eradication of ISIS, and upholding regional stability. American representatives have put forward proposals aimed at bolstering the SDF's role as a crucial partner in the fight against ISIS. This commitment to partnership was reaffirmed by American officials, and we regularly engage with the American side to address challenges and issues arising in the regions that we liberated jointly.

US Army Chief of Staff Mark Milley visited northeastern Syria. How did that visit go?

The visit of the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley, was to inspect the situation of US forces in the region, and in to review the progress of operations to ensure the defeat of ISIS. He also met with US service members. The visit renewed confidence that the partnership between the SDF and the international coalition forces remains strong and that work is still continuing to ensure the defeat of ISIS.

Do you assess this visit a guarantee of the American presence? Did he inform you of this?

In practice, such high-level visits serve as a reiteration of Washington's commitment to the completion of efforts to defeat ISIS. They underscore the significance of the region within Washington's security strategy. It is a shared understanding with the Americans that the stabilization of the region and the prevention of an ISIS resurgence are directly tied to bolstering the capabilities of our forces and ensuring sustained support.

The Turkish threats of a military operation in northern Syria have receded. How do you explain that?

We had hoped that the decrease in threats stemmed from Turkish officials recognising that the threat of war only exacerbates regional problems. However, Ankara's step back from its belligerent stance appears to be driven by the challenges in securing approval from either the United States or Russia.

Hence, there is a pressing need to abandon the assertive policy Turkey has vigorously pursued over the past two years. Turkey's internal circumstances and its economic turmoil seem to hinder the continuation of such threats, as they have a detrimental effect on its relations with major nations, particularly the United States.

Additionally, the mending of Arab (Gulf)-Turkish relations has contributed to Turkey refraining from provocative actions against regional countries and relinquishing its ambitions to expand its occupation zones in Syria. We look forward to a complete cessation of these threats and remain open to any dialogue that promotes regional stability and facilitates a resolution to the Syrian crisis, particularly in areas under Turkish occupation, with the ultimate aim of facilitating the return of their original inhabitants.

The US-Russian tension in northeastern Syria has increased, possibly due to the situation in Ukraine. How has this affected you?

Tensions in the region are still under control, and we are committed to preventing our territories from becoming arenas of international and regional rivalries. Our relations with these major powers are shaped by the interests of our local populations and the broader interests of the Syrian people. Consequently, as Syrians, we exert efforts to shield our regions from the impacts of international disputes and to refrain from becoming entangled in global conflicts.

How do you balance your relationship between the US and Russia?

Our relationship with the US military is based on our joint efforts in combatting IS and safeguarding regional security. In regions where US forces are not present, and which fall within Russia's sphere of influence, we strive to establish a framework of coordination to foster stability and deter the spread of chaos and terrorism.

Our relationships are straightforward: we do not endorse taking sides against one another. Our objective is to protect this part of Syria until a just political resolution is reached, which can end the country's ongoing crisis.

Why have you not engaged with Damascus despite Russian pressure? What are your preconditions for reaching an agreement with Damascus?

We are not opposed to engaging with Damascus; however, the conditions are not yet ripe. We don't see any willingness from Damascus to be flexible on our positions. We tried to get Russia involved to help advance a political resolution. 

We ask that Damascus accept a realistic political solution.

In April, the autonomous administration put forth such an initiative but we have yet to receive any response from Damascus. This shows its disinterest in fostering peace and resolving the crisis.

Damascus had called for the dissolution of the SDF and the integrating of its members into the Syrian army. What is your position on this?

The SDF is a professional and national force, and we advocate for its integration into the Syrian defence system under the framework of specific laws that recognise the significant sacrifices made by our forces in protecting Syrians from terrorism and their exceptional effectiveness in safeguarding their regions.

Any discussion of dissolving the SDF makes the possibility of a political solution drift farther away. It shows that Damascus is not serious about having a sincere dialogue. Imposing unrealistic preconditions makes it impossible to resolve the conflict.

The more Damascus delays a resolution to the conflict, the more it will lose in the long run. 

What about the future of the Autonomous Administration? What is your stance on Damascus' proposal for decentralisation?

The future of the Autonomous Administration hinges on its capacity to preserve, enhance, and address any shortcomings in its experience. Safeguarding this experience is a collective duty for all Syrians.

Practical experience has demonstrated that the Autonomous Administration model is the most conducive to mitigating centralisation and affording local communities the autonomy to shape their own local policies and elect their representatives independently, free from guardianship, marginalisation, or exclusion.

The proposals put forth by Damascus seem to revolve around recycling the existing local administration legislation in a manner that bolsters central authority. To put it differently, these proposals do not signify a move towards decentralisation in the near term or the foreseeable future.